With all due respect to Ande, who tried to get me to buy a tech suit at Nationals (Ande, thanks for the compliment when you guessed my size, but I would wear a 36 in a tech suit, not a 26.), I respectfully submit my top ten reasons for hating tech suits:
1. $$$ Too expensive. I feel my money was better spent at The Athlete Village, having a video analysis done of my breaststroke. Implementing the tips I picked up from the online coach will help me to swim faster faster than a tech suit.
2. Struggle to put on. In the time it took a couple of gals in the locker room at Nationals to get their suit half-way on, I was out of my street clothes, into my Speedo Endurance suit, and had my bag unpacked and into the locker. And, I had expended a lot less energy than they did. I would rather spend my energy in the pool… :D
3. Too fragile. See Allen Stark’s post about his tech suit blowout- right before his event. I would be steaming big time if I had spent a heap of $ on a tech suit, then have it rip on me. :bitching:
Speaking of steaming…
4. The heat factor. I have heat intolerance medical issues (I love the heat mentally; my body hates it in a serious way), so being encased in a tech suit would exasperate the situation and possibly negate any gain I had made wearing the suit anyway. I was in Sunday’s last event (200 breaststroke) and was wasted by that point, after spending three days in the heat and humidity. :badday:
5. I want an apples-to-apples comparison of my times. I (barely) beat my seed times in two of my events and dropped my time about 2 seconds in another. If I had worn a tech suit and improved my times even more, would that have been a fair comparison- or would it have been the suit? I think a tech suit would have provided a false sense of success and an inaccurate indication as to my level of improvement since my previous meet. Then, post-tech suit, if my times got worse how would I feel then? I wonder how many of the swimmers will feel when they see (possibly) seconds being added back on to their times, post-tech suit? A false sense of success followed by huge disappointment is going to play on many minds, I’m sure. :confused:
6. Wearing a tech suit only exposes the arms and feet. I like to FEEL of the water with more than that. :agree:
7. Claustrophobic; too confining. I love summer, because I get to live in shorts and t-shirts. The less on me the better; it's more comfortable. :)
8. My current ranking #130 of 266 in the 50 breaststroke doesn’t put me in a position to be winning any medals or awards. Where would a tech suit put me in the rankings? #125? #120?? Even #100? Big deal! :rolleyes:
9. Personally, modesty isn’t an issue. At 48, I’m comfortable in my 5’71/2, 123lb. frame. And, I was comfortable in my not-as-fit 150lb pound frame, when I spent six months in Australia, back in 1984, where I spent some of the time relaxing on their nude beaches. Why? Because Aussies are comfortable in their skin and not hung up on their bodies like Americans are. Nude and topless beaches are common in Australia and you will see bodies of all shapes and sizes there. And, nobody cares. :)
Speaking of bodies…
10. Visualize Mark Spitz…1972 Olympics… in a Speedo… :D I was only 10 years old, but, believe me, my eyes were GLUED to the TV- and not necessarily only while he was swimming. Need I say more? Not all Masters swimmers look as good as Mark Spitz in a Speedo, but I saw PLENTY of AARP eligible swimmers out of their tech suits at Nationals that had absolutely stunning bodies- male and female! And, for those who weren’t? So what???
That concludes my :2cents: on the subject!
I don't buy the equality argument. Men used to wear briefs and women tanks. Then, men wore jammers and women kneeskins. Allowing men to wear their so-called "farmer john" suits with no concomitant tech edge for women would give men a tech advantage over FINA rules and women none. Seems unfair to me.
As to the whether women really want more coverage issue, I am a firm yes. I hate kneeskins. They are only designed to make women look fat, and absolutely crush the legs. Zippers are also key for women b/c they help prevent the girls from falling/sticking out.
If people are really so against rubber, I'd vote (as a couple folks have here) to returning to the bodysuits with zippers from circa 2007. But, again, I don't think "rubber" is a bad word.
Just to make sure I understand this argument, are you saying (a)historically having to wear suit that covered more of their bodies put women at a "technological disadvantage" due to the added drag of such suits, (b) modern suits are fairly close to drag-neutral (and offer whatever benefits compression gives) (saying nothing for "tech" suits, which make you faster than pure skin), therefore (c) to correct this perceived historical disadvantage, only women should be allowed to have greater permissible coverage? I think one of your arguments for tech suits is that they are "fun" and "fast". If this extra coverage is "fun" and "fast", why shouldn't men be able to take advantage of it? Since women and men don't actually compete, I'm not sure how it is an "advantage" as between the sexes in any event.
As to rubber, I swam in the SF Bay with a wetsuit on this weekend (the water was a brisk 54 degrees, which is a little colder than I've ever experienced before so I think the extra coverage was justified (though I was the only person in a group of 20 that wore a wetsuit--those Dolphin Club swimmers are HARD CORE)). I have to say, wearing the wetsuit is fun and fast. I know people argue that the full body suits encourage more participation. I bet wetsuits (with their added flotation) would encourage even MORE participation as non-"swimmers" (or "poor" swimmers) would be able to compete. It's not like the wetsuits do the swimming for you, after all. What do people think?
:)
I don't buy the equality argument. Men used to wear briefs and women tanks. Then, men wore jammers and women kneeskins. Allowing men to wear their so-called "farmer john" suits with no concomitant tech edge for women would give men a tech advantage over FINA rules and women none. Seems unfair to me.
As to the whether women really want more coverage issue, I am a firm yes. I hate kneeskins. They are only designed to make women look fat, and absolutely crush the legs. Zippers are also key for women b/c they help prevent the girls from falling/sticking out.
If people are really so against rubber, I'd vote (as a couple folks have here) to returning to the bodysuits with zippers from circa 2007. But, again, I don't think "rubber" is a bad word.
Just to make sure I understand this argument, are you saying (a)historically having to wear suit that covered more of their bodies put women at a "technological disadvantage" due to the added drag of such suits, (b) modern suits are fairly close to drag-neutral (and offer whatever benefits compression gives) (saying nothing for "tech" suits, which make you faster than pure skin), therefore (c) to correct this perceived historical disadvantage, only women should be allowed to have greater permissible coverage? I think one of your arguments for tech suits is that they are "fun" and "fast". If this extra coverage is "fun" and "fast", why shouldn't men be able to take advantage of it? Since women and men don't actually compete, I'm not sure how it is an "advantage" as between the sexes in any event.
As to rubber, I swam in the SF Bay with a wetsuit on this weekend (the water was a brisk 54 degrees, which is a little colder than I've ever experienced before so I think the extra coverage was justified (though I was the only person in a group of 20 that wore a wetsuit--those Dolphin Club swimmers are HARD CORE)). I have to say, wearing the wetsuit is fun and fast. I know people argue that the full body suits encourage more participation. I bet wetsuits (with their added flotation) would encourage even MORE participation as non-"swimmers" (or "poor" swimmers) would be able to compete. It's not like the wetsuits do the swimming for you, after all. What do people think?
:)
